No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide instructional guidance on how to increase validity and reduce subjectivity in qualitative studies, such as grounded theory. The paper also demonstrates how different techniques can help management research by including informants/managers in a time efficient way.Design/methodology/approachThis paper describes how three complementary triangulation methods can be used for validation and exploration of concepts and themes in qualitative studies. Tree graphs, concept mapping, and member checking are applied in a managerial case study, complementing a conventional grounded theory approach.FindingsThe paper suggests that naturalistic inquiries, such as grounded theory and thematic analysis, can use mixed methods and multiple sources and coders in order to offset biases and to validate and sort findings. The case study presents three different perspectives on how an organization comprehends diversity as a strategic issue.Originality/valueThe paper suggests a mixed methods design that addresses some of the potential shortcomings often found in grounded theory and other qualitative studies, their theory development and their documentation of processes. It positions the approach over the range of the triangulation literature and it argues that it is important to be aware of different triangulation mindsets, and these they are not necessarily contradictory.

This paper reviews workforce diversity literature and its research findings. We identify important gaps between the literature and the challenges of diversity management. These gaps include lack of organizational level analysis, tokenism, and artificially constructed research settings that cannot address a variety of cultural contexts. Furthermore, most studies do not investigate underlying beliefs and values or managerial interventions. We conclude that the diversity field itself is not very diverse and has been dominated by US-centric research. We provide suggestions for future research themes: language diversity, cultural contextualization of diversity, and social class diversity.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to build theory and present a model of the development of conflicts in teams. Design/methodology/approach -The paper develops a conceptual model based on past theory and research. Findings -The model brings a multi-level perspective to the process of intragroup conflict by showing the mechanisms by which an interpersonal, dyadic conflict can spread to other team members over time through a process of conflict contagion. Originality/value -This study provides a new model for conflict escalation and it sheds light on factors which can either ameliorate or exacerbate the speed and extent of conflict contagion. The repercussions of different degrees of conflict involvement within a team are discussed.

This article presents a reframing of workforce diversity as a social tragedy. We draw on Hardin's concept of 'tragedy of the commons', which explored the conflicts between individual and collective good. We identify two dilemmas that underscore the social tragedy of diversity and explain why they prevent workforce diversity from progressing: (1) voluntarism and (2) individualism. We critique the simplistic models of managing diversity and suggest an alternative conceptualization as a way forward. We advocate an approach that captures the potential contradictions between individual and social good and accounts for the role of multiple actors in tackling the tragedy of the uncommons. A reframing of organizational self-interest and collective interests in the context of diversity is presented and solutions to social tragedy of diversity are proposed.

In the quest to attract talent, organizations must articulate the benefits of having a diverse workforce. By communicating the attractiveness of the workplace, a company increases its exposure to the environment as an employer of choice. In this paper, we conduct a comparative and thematic cross-cultural examination of corporate communication in form of diversity statements. We examine how organizations use diversity statements to attract talent, and discuss how the two strategic areas of diversity and employer branding can be linked in the concept of diversity branding. We examine the websites of 75 major companies in five different countries (France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the United States). Cross-cultural differences and similarities are discussed. We also conclude that the discourse of inclusion is gradually penetrating websites and that branding inclusion can be beneficial in the quest to be an employer of choice.

Purpose-Are there ''really'' gender differences in leadership? Do beliefs regarding gender differences in leadership differ across cultures? And how do these beliefs influence diversity management? This article aims to demonstrate how different beliefs regarding gender differences and leadership can influence company diversity policies and initiatives. Design/methodology/approach-First, the authors review the research evidence on the relationship between gender and leadership. Then they explore the effects of gender stereotyping. Furthermore, they consider the role of culture on these beliefs. This review serves as the foundation for the discussion of three different perspectives regarding gender and leadership: gender-blind; gender-conscious; and perception-creates-reality (or believing is seeing). Findings-Adhering to these different paradigms can influence actions taken to managing diversity and human resource policies. Revealing these different paradigms can help companies and managers reassess their diversity practices. Originality/value-The paper discusses issues that are of interest to all levels of managers. Keywords Gender, Leadership, Human resource management, Cross-cultural management Paper type General review The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm Gender[1] and leadership Research in leadership has a long and inconclusive history. For centuries, scholars have sought to establish the traits and behaviors (see Bass, 1990) that determine effective leadership. More recently the focus has been on leadership that is transformational vs transactional, and leadership that is ''authentic'' (e.g. Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Davis-Blake and Pfeffer, 1989; Hooijberg et al., 2007). Popular interest is evident in a Google search, which shows more than 100 million hits. What leadership is depends on the ontological and epistemological stance and assumptions (Hunt, 2004). We take here a generic (perhaps naïve) stance whereby leadership in organizations is about setting direction for the collective and leaders define and communicate a direction for their subordinate units (Zaccaro and Banks, 2001). Organizations are often defined publically by its leaders at the very top level and CEO effects are frequently investigated (e.g. Waldman and Yammarino, 1999), but leadership is important throughout management levels (Bass, 1990) and prevalent in much of the management literature. Although the idea that men and women are from different planets (Gray, 1992, 2008) and that their ways of leading differ innately (e.g. Senge, 2008) is rife in popular culture, empirical evidence does not indicate significant gender differences in leadership. In fact, the results of the role of gender and leadership research over the last 20 years remain largely inconsistent (for an overview, see Butterfield and Grinnell, 1999; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2007; Vecchio, 2003). Some research supports the notion of gender differences, for example that women tend to be slightly mo...